The smart set at the Washington Post figures the Republican Party has an “Archie Bunker problem.” The reason? A single comment about “wetbacks” by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), and the Washington Post springs into action.
Young’s dumb characterization allowed Post writers Aaron Blake (D-Northern Virginia) and Juliet Eilperin (D-D.C.) to push the tired leftist narrative: Republicans, racist, repeat.
The message: whatever effort they make toward modernizing their brand, there will always be a few Archie Bunkers out there — people, like the lead character in the 70′s sitcom “All in the Family,” who are unconcerned with or unwilling to moderate their tone. And these days more than in the past, their offhand remarks can derail the most carefully orchestrated PR campaign.
Whether or not Young’s comment reflects the views of Republicans besides Young matters little to the witty duo at the Post.
There is only one Don Young in the Republican Party. But the Democrats have a “Homer Simpson problem” that dwarfs any stupid comment by a single congressman.
The Democrats have become the party of Homer Simpson — a party reliant on millions of low-information voters seeking something for nothing. Like the Democrat dependency class, Homer Simpson (D-Springfield) relied on Mojo the Helper Monkey to feed him and even wipe the sauce from his face. The pair eventually gorged themselves into a stupor.
The Democratic Party has become the party that promises millions of helper monkeys. But those of us who work and pay taxes are the helper monkeys for Homer Simpsons across America.
Don’t think you should pay for your own college education? Mojo will make sure people who long ago paid for theirs will pay for yours. Think your neighbor should pay for your health care? Mojo will take care of it. Need a free cell phone? Mojo paid for his, but now he’ll pay for yours.
Homer has no shame letting Mojo do all the work. Homer’s on the take.
Homer Simpson’s guiding philosophy mirrors the central premise of the Democrat policy agenda: moving wealth from the productive to the unproductive. Homer Simpson wanted someone else to do his work, pay his bills, fetch him doughnuts. This is the fundamental feature of the age of Obama. Thus, the Democratic Party now has a Homer Simpson problem of far greater scale than the GOP’s supposed “Archie Bunker problem.”
I’ve watched with slight interest the increasing Democrat partisanship of University of California at Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen. Hasen is a favorite source of election-law news for the left. His blog, housed on servers at the public UC Irvine, catalogs the left-wing narrative for other professors, students, and politicos to digest.
Rachel Maddow routinely brings Hasen on her show to promulgate his biases in the disguise of scholarly commentary.
His selectivity of content on his blog reveals his biases. Stories about voter fraud? They rarely get mentioned unless it can be demonstrated that “voter ID wouldn’t have prevented” the particular type of fraud he has chosen to report.
Stories about malfeasance in the Obama Voting Section, such as the career recommendation to preclear South Carolina voter ID (a decision later overruled by Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez)? Hasen tweets that he won’t report on that until a “major” (read: liberal) newspaper reports it, or the documents that exist proving the PJ Media story are leaked.
In other words, Hasen will ignore the important story because none of my sources would ever trust his left-wing allies like Maddow with the documents.
Thankfully, senators like Lindsey Graham aren’t ignoring the (accurate) reporting.
Hasen subscribes to the theory that only the left-wing goose deserves sauce; the conservative gander doesn’t even exist. This was most recently on display in Hasen’s intellectually dishonest response to the devastating DOJ inspector general’s report on the rancid goings-on inside the Justice Department. He published this article, in which he ignores the findings he doesn’t like and continues to mislead the public about the Bush administration’s handling of voting rights cases.
He also continues to misrepresent facts surrounding PJ Media contributor Hans von Spakovsky. Hasen asserts we all “know” that “senior Justice Department officials in the Bush era, including Hans von Spakovsky, overruled the recommendations of career civil-service attorneys in the section to approve Georgia’s controversial voter identification law.”
We all “know” this? In fact, page 87 of the IG report specifically says that the long-time “career civil service” chief of the Voting Section, John Tanner, recommended that the Georgia voter ID law be precleared. Von Spakovsky — who was also a career civil service lawyer at Justice, although you would never know that from Hasen’s misleading article — didn’t overrule anyone.
Hasen also says we all “know” (that arrogant word again) the Bush administration “made decisions widely perceived to help Republicans, such as approving Texas’ mid-decade re-redistricting of its congressional seats to create more safe Republican seats, an effort partially overturned by the Supreme Court after finding it violated the Voting Rights Act.”
Again, we do not all “know” this — especially the inspector general, who disagrees with the professor. The inspector general specifically says on page 114 that “allegations of politicized decision-making in Section 5 decisions were not substantiated.”
The approval of the Texas congressional redistricting plan that Hasen is referring to was a Section 5 case. The IG report says that there were “strong differences of opinion” over the Texas Section 5 matter, but that after careful review, the IG “could not conclude that the positions taken … were inconsistent with applicable law or that they were offered as a pretext for advancing partisan objectives.”
If you are one of Hasen’s students, beware. When he describes a case as settled, consider the source.
Von Spakovsky told me that he asked Hasen in writing to correct his false assertions about the Georgia voter ID case because Hasen clearly intended to give his readers:
… the misleading impression in the Texas matter that the Supreme Court’s ruling showed that the preclearance decision was wrong. In fact, the violation the Supreme Court found that Hasen was referring to was under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, not Section 5, but Hasen never mentions that. The Supreme Court opinion actually vindicated the Bush administration’s approval of the Texas redistricting plan. The Supreme Court agreed with the Bush administration’s conclusion that there were only eight majority-minority congressional districts that needed to be preserved in the Texas redistricting plan. The one violation they found had no applicability to the Section 5 issue.
You would think a professor cares about accuracy. Sadly, among leftist election law professors, that is often not the case.
Today, President Obama issues a challenge to Republican Senators: in nominating Tom Perez as Labor secretary, he implies that Senate Republicans don’t have either the guts or organizational skill to stop what would become perhaps the most radical left-wing cabinet member in history.
Whether the president is right about GOP senators remains to be seen.
As they say, I wrote the book on Tom Perez. My New York Times bestseller Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department is largely a catalog of the rancid racialism over which Perez has presided.
The New Black Panther case is one small part. But so are the eighth-grade transvestite lawsuits in New York, and so are the race quotas in New York City. PJ Media has been covering Perez in a way that no other outlet has for the last three years: his wars on peaceful Catholic pro-life protesters, his dishonesty under oath, and his overruling of career DOJ lawyers in the South Carolina Voter ID case are but three more from a long list of radical transgressions.
Make no mistake — that’s why Obama appointed him.
Obama knows power is fleeting. You have a short amount of time to affect a large amount of change. He knows Perez is an unapologetic leftist from the Hugo Chavez-wing of the Democrat Party. (Not an exaggeration: Chavez once had Citgo make a payment to Perez’s illegal alien advocacy group Casa de Maryland.)
Below, a list of some of PJ Media’s coverage:
Senator Marco Rubio has joined a bipartsian group in Congress to propose a “Latino Museum” on the National Mall. The museum would occupy the Smithsonian “castle,” the iconic red building on the Mall. The Washington Times has more:
A bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday proposed adding an American Latino Museum to the National Mall, saying it’s time to recognize the growing public role and power of the Hispanic population in the U.S. The bill would designate the Smithsonian’s Arts and Industries Building — the red, original Smithsonian building known colloquially in Washington as “the castle” — as the site of the new museum. The museum would have to be built through private funds.
“Through the years, our numbers have grown as well as our significance to the story of America,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who is chief sponsor of the legislation. “A Museum of the American Latino would officially acknowledge our great history in the United States, and educate visitors about how the success of this country could not have been accomplished without the achievements of Hispanic Americans.”
He was joined in sponsoring the bill by Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, Rep. Xavier Becerra, California Democrat, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican.
The Latino museum would not be the only museum dedicated to a racial group on the National Mall. Again, the Washington Times.
A National Museum of African American History and Culture is already being built on the National Mall and the National Museum of the American Indian has been added to the Mall within the past decade as well.
It took a few years, but the report issued this week by the DOJ inspector general confirms reporting (here) by PJ Media: the powerful DOJ Voting Section ran an ideologically charged attorney recruitment and hiring effort that deliberately sought left-leaning lawyers.
Sources familiar with the thinking of Civil Rights Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez report that he and others in the department believe the damning inspector general report actually vindicates the attorney hiring decisions over the last few years in the Civil Rights Division. In essence, Perez believes that the report shows that the attorneys were qualified.
He must not have read page 218 of the report. And Perez, of course, misses entirely the point of the charges levied at the division about hiring per our Every Single One series.
Qualifications weren’t the core issue, ideological biases were.
And on that score, the IG report offers Perez no quarter. In fact, the IG report concludes that the criteria — that only attorneys with experience working at a civil rights organization, which is invariably (and empirically) left of center, will be hired — should not be a qualification in the future. Perez should know better than to claim that the report vindicates the division’s hiring decisions, because Perez himself complained about the recommendation to jettison this “civil rights group experience” qualification.
Ideological binders can produce skewed thinking, and that’s happening, in relation to the report, by division leadership.
Consider the damning passage below. For years we heard that the Bush administration made hiring decisions based on ideology. Now, we learn in the inspector general report that the infamous Julie Fernandes, with the help of Deputy Becky Wertz, were up to the same shenanigans — except this time with the purpose of recruiting liberal attorneys because of their ideology. The pair created an ideologically pure list of left-wing lawyers to recruit to the DOJ Voting Section, where they had previously worked. The list excluded conservative attorneys who had left the Voting Section in the same timeframe who also had extensive experience litigating election cases, but left in part because of the harassment by liberal DOJ employees.
Will the names “Fernandes” and “Wertz” be thrown around for years in left-wing blogs as violators of DOJ policies against ideological hiring? Of course not. The ends justify the means for this crowd.
Note the horse-hockey explanations offered by Wertz and Berman for the list. From the IG report, starting on page 218:
We received inconsistent responses from CRT staff to our questions concerning the purpose of the list of former Voting Section attorneys that DAAG Fernandes requested in late 2009 – a list that ultimately included 25 former Voting Section attorneys but omitted several former Section attorneys who were widely perceived to be conservatives. Fernandes stated that she requested a list of attorneys who had left the Section since 2005 and did not seek a list that excluded conservatives. Herren told the OIG that he could not remember how the list of attorneys was compiled, but believed it should have included attorneys who left during the prior administration, primarily those who departed the Section due to improper practices like those described in the prior OIG report. Wertz told us she believed that she may have worked on the list and said that she thought that Fernandes was looking for staff with extensive voting rights experience who might be interested in returning. However, when we pointed out that some attorneys on the list did not have extensive voting experience, she could not explain why they were included. She also could not explain why conservatives were left off the list even though they had significant voting litigation experience. She said that they may not have been interested in returning, though we found that Voting Section staff did not make any attempt to gauge the interest of the conservative attorneys. Berman said that the list was made up of attorneys with redistricting experience.
Although we did not receive a consistent explanation for the purpose of this list, we did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the list was actually used in the recruitment and selection of new attorneys for the Voting Section. However, we found the explanations we received about the list troubling because it appeared that the list was prepared in part for recruiting purposes (Fernandes said she thought that there may be former staff who wanted to return to the Section), people widely perceived to be conservatives were omitted from it, and staff in the Voting Section failed to provide a consistent explanation as to why that was the case.
We believe these incidents point to ongoing risks within the Voting Section for future violations of merit system principles, as well as for creating perceptions that CRT engages in favoritism based on ideology and politics”
Current Voting Section Deputy Chief Becky Wertz said the conservatives “may not have been interested in returning,” because, of course, Wertz is a clairvoyant.
Truth and revolution can appear suddenly, and darken the brightest of times.
Consider yesterday’s Department of Justice inspector general’s report documenting the rancid racialist attitudes of the Voting Section staff. (See: “Inspector General Report of Racialist Dysfunction Inside DOJ.”)
The Justice Department should hope that Justice Antonin Scalia — or his clerks — don’t catch wind of the IG report before Shelby v. Holder is decided. If he or they do, they will find a particularly interesting discussion regarding what Justice Scalia called “racial entitlements” in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The left has been apoplectic about Scalia’s observation. But yesterday’s DOJ inspector general’s report makes plain: many staff inside the Justice Department define Section 5 exactly as Scalia does: as a “racial entitlement.”
In the report, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez — a possible Obama nominee to head the Department of Labor — makes clear that he doesn’t think Section 5 should ever be used to protect a white minority in covered jurisdictions.
Perez feels it should only be used to prop up the political position of “people of color.” If the victims of discrimination happen to be white, too bad — they are not protected.
Put aside for a moment that this is precisely the sort of attitude and exactly the type of policy about which I testified under oath in 2010. Even some wayward conservatives joined the howls on the Left when I exposed this deplorable law-enforcement philosophy. Thanks to Tom Perez’s unapologetic leftist candor, we now know with absolute clarity the truth about the current DOJ — and the truth is ugly.
From the report (pp. 90-91):
Perez also told the OIG that he believed interpreting the retrogressive-effect prong of the analysis to cover White citizens would be inconsistent with the history of and intent behind Section 5, which he stated was enacted to remedy the specific problem of discrimination against racial minorities. In his February 2011 letter, Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term “minority” to mean not numerical minority, but rather “an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.”
Pay close attention to Perez’s use of “disadvantaged group.” This qualifier is familiar language to critical-race theorists. It evidences a view that even a small white minority is never worthy of protection, even if discriminated against, because ultimately whites are members of a privileged group. Also, people of color are always part of a “disadvantaged group.”
Privilege and disadvantage are not prerequisites to equal protection of the law.
Yet DOJ Voting Section lawyers employed Perez’s logic to argue against helping white victims of discrimination in Macon, Mississippi, saying:
Until blacks were socio-economically equal to whites in Mississippi (read: statistically) then whites should not be protected under the Voting Rights Act.
What should trouble the justices on the Supreme Court deciding Shelby is that Scalia’s fears reflect the plain enforcement policy of the Justice Department unit which enforces Section 5. To Tom Perez, it is axiomatic that Section 5 is a racial entitlement only to people of color. The protections of the law, to him, are not for whites. Section 5 is only to be used to preserve the political power of blacks, Hispanic, and native Americans.
If that isn’t a racial entitlement, I don’t know what is.
Perez employs the doublespeak and prevarication for which he has become famous: he dishonestly infers that the Supreme Court has addressed and decided the matter. Perez writes that the Supreme Court “has consistently recognized that Section 5 was enacted to deal with a particular historical problem of racial discrimination against minorities.” (Pages 90-91 of the report).
Of course the Supreme Court has said Section 5 protects national racial minorities, as it did in 1966 when it first upheld Section 5. But what Perez fails to note is that the question of whether Section 5 protects all Americans, including whites, has never been before the Court.
Perez would have the uninformed reader believe otherwise.
Today the Department of Justice inspector general released a report on potential Labor secretary nominee Tom Perez’s DOJ Civil Rights Division. The timing of the release to coincide with his nomination was certainly accidental, because the report paints a damning portrait of the DOJ unit he managed.
The full report is here.
The 250-page report offers an inside glimpse of systemic racialist dysfunction inside one of the most powerful federal government agencies.
The report was prepared in response to Representative Frank Wolf’s (R-VA) outrage over the New Black Panther voter intimidation dismissal. In response to the report, Rep. Wolf said today, the “report makes clear that the division has become a rat’s nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement.”
Today’s report paints a disgusting portrait, confirming our accounts.
Chris Coates, in response to today’s report:
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Obama administration in 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ was not enforcing the voting laws in a race-neutral manner, contrary to the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection. That pattern of racially selective enforcement of the voting laws must stop. I hope that the IG report facilitates that needed reform.
Though the report took almost four years to complete, it was worth the wait. Though the report commenced as an investigation into the New Black Panther dismissal, seemingly every rock the investigators turned over resulted in more creatures fleeing the sunshine. The final report captures a range of outrageous conduct, including the following examples:
– “Numerous witnesses told us that there was widespread opposition to the Noxubee case among the Voting Section career staff.” Noxubee was a case in which white voters were victimized.
– DOJ employees opposed the bringing of a case against a black defendant to help white victims in Noxubee County, Mississippi.
The report: “Coates and other career attorneys told the OIG that they were aware of comments by some Voting Section attorneys indicating that the Noxubee case should have never been brought because White citizens were not historical victims of discrimination or could fend for themselves. Indeed, two career Voting Section attorneys told us that, even if the Department had infinite resources, they still would not have supported the filing of the Noxubee case because it was contrary to the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, which was to ensure that minorities who had historically been the victims of discrimination could exercise the right to vote.”
– “Many of those individuals told the OIG that they believed that the reason the voting rights laws were enacted was to protect historic victims of discrimination and therefore the Section should prioritize its resources accordingly. Additionally, some of these individuals, including one current manager, admitted to us that, while they believed that the text of the Voting Rights Act is race-neutral and applied to all races, they did not believe the Voting Section should pursue cases on behalf of White victims.”
– Threats were made to African American employees by other Justice Department staff.
The threats were made because the black employees were willing to work on cases like the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and a case in Mississippi involving a black wrongdoer and a white victim. I testified about this disgusting hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of the law, and today’s report confirms it took place.
– Attorney General Eric Holder was approached by Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King: King complained about cases that Voting Section Chief Chris Coates was bringing. King didn’t like that Coates was willing to use civil rights laws to protect white voters. Coates had brought and managed the New Black Panther voter intimidation case.
Holder greenlighted King: do what was necessary to take care of Coates.
– Attorney General Holder told us that he understood from what others told him that Coates was a divisive and controversial person in the Voting Section and that one concern about Coates was that he “wanted to expand the use of the power of the Civil Rights Division in such a way that it would take us into areas that, though justified, would come at a cost of that which the Department traditionally had done, at the cost of people [that the] Civil Rights Division had traditionally protected. ”
I was on Fox News yesterday talking about drones, Eric Holder, and Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster. Paul’s filibuster shows what an emboldened Republican Party can accomplish. Was it political theatre? Of course, but who cares? All of politics is theatre, and for the last decade or so, the Democrats have been better at it. Superior stagecraft gave Obama two presidential victories and the subsequent policy wins such as Obamacare. Notice in my Fox hit I make allusion to Republican senators like Sen. Ted Cruz actually showing up to hearings and asking tough questions. This is a serious problem, particularly in high-profile hearings with the attorney general. When Republicans show up and fight, as Cruz and Paul have done, Holder makes mistakes, and the administration retreats in the face of an aggressive opposition. That’s the lesson of the Paul filibuster.
Also read: Rand Paul vs. the Harrumphies
“Saturn” was a bust. President Obama’s Office of Personnel Management shut down the federal government today for winter weather. And all it did in D.C. was rain, rain, rain and rain some more. In fact, the official observation for Washington D.C. shows not even a dusting of snow on the ground for the entire day (as of 3:15 p.m.), but 0.92 inches of rain. The rest of America must be laughing, particularly in places like Wisconsin.
Anyone care to guess how much that decision cost the taxpayers?